Comparative clinical evaluation of correct anatomic contour and tight contact in Class II direct composite...

The aim of the study was to compare and evaluate proximal contact tightness and contours using two newer contact-forming systems in Class II composite restorations.

After institutional ethical approval and Clinical Trials Registry-India registration, patients were chosen according to the inclusion-exclusion criteria with informed consent. A total of 60 patients were randomly assigned to two groups. Group A: LM Arte contact former (n = 30) and Group B: The design village (TDV) contact former (n = 30). Quadrant isolation was performed after the complete elimination of dental caries, preceded by the insertion of a matrix band and retainer with the proper wedging system. The LM Arte with the appropriate tip was selected for Group A, whereas the TDV contact former was selected for Group B based on the cavity size. Following the conversion of Class II cavities to Class I, nanohybrid resin composite restoration was done by cuspal layering. It was followed by finishing and polishing. E. B. Hencock criteria were used to evaluate gingival index, pocket depth, interproximal calculus, overhangs, food impaction, and contact integrity in both groups at baseline, 6 months, and 1 year.

The data were analyzed using the Chi-Square test with SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) software version 18.0, IBM.

A statistically significant reduction in gingival index score was observed in both groups 6 months and 1 year after the procedure. However, the values revealed in terms of gingival index (P < 0.05) and (P > 0.05) for pocket depth, interproximal calculus, overhangs, food impaction, and contact integrity in both groups for 6 months (P > 0.05) and (P > 0.05) after the procedure.

Both the LM Arte and TDV contact-forming systems are effective in establishing perfect proximal contacts and contours. However, the LM Arte contact-forming system edges out the TDV contact-forming system.